Is it time for a revolution?

We're in a crazy period. Home values have been rising and "flipping" is starting up again in places like Miami and Las Vegas, today the stock market is going through the roof, setting a new record. The jobs report tells us that jobs are being created at a very slow pace and that new unemployment claims are down.

At the same time, the new jobs don't pay as well as the jobs they are replacing and the income gap is wider than ever.

Replies to This Discussion

Well, that's weird, because I have clarified myself several times, and yet you keep coming back to points like how horrible it is to use AKs for hunting. I have specifically said several times that that is not what we are debating here, yet you keep coming back to that. If that is the debate you want to have, that's fine, but that is a completely different subject than we started on. The ONLY reason I addressed the hunting issue is that YOU brought it up.

But, as I mentioned in reply to the other post (so we could get away from this long thread that makes us keep paging back to get to a reply button), you apparently don't know what the 2A is for, why it was put in place, or why we need it today. Without that understanding, it's perfectly understandable to not see the point in people owning high capacity magazines and "assault weapon" (well, as long as you ignore the whole point of a "free society" anyway).

The only reason I bring up cars is exactly the point you are making - the only difference is that guns actually fall into that same category. You are talking about punishing millions of people for the acts of a few. You think that's perfectly acceptable, I don't. That is where our attitudes separate. I'm perfectly happy to have a rational debate about it, but I won't do it with someone who nitpicks and takes things out of context. If you hadn't noticed, that is when I stop debating religiots. If that's all you want to do on your side of the subject, that's fine, but it's not a debate and I just won't do it. If you actually want to look at the facts, I'm all for a lively debate. But if you just want to come into a discussion with a closed mind and just take things I say out of context and dismiss everything else I say (especially when I clarify myself), I'm just not interested in dealing with it.

Isn't that exactly what frustrates us both about religitards? When they do exactly what you're doing to me and then insist that they aren't doing it "just to win", but it's obvious that is the only thing they are actually doing?

TE: "I have specifically said several times that that is not what we are debating here" - and you can say it a dozen more, but it won't change anything - my original contention was that no one needs assault rifles and StreetSweepers for hunting, which could quite likely explain why I keep coming back to it, despite your smoke-and-mirrors effort to conflate those kinds of weapons with cars.

I'm perfectly aware of the purpose of the second amendment, the maintenance of a militia, but why don't you give me yours, just so I'll see how closely we agree.

"RE: 'You specifically said that you thought that the 2A addressed weapons for hunting and self-protection.' - no, I didn't"

Your specific quote:

1. What do you think the 2A (2nd amendment) is for?

...the subject will be addressed in question #2.

2. Do you see any value at all in keeping the 2A?

... The only thing I've been saying all along, is that there are some weapons we don't need to possess for hunting or self preservation."

So, who is seeing white rabbits? Why would you possibly bring up hunting and self defense when talking about the second amendment if this isn't what you think it's addressing? or are you saying that we should be fucked out of out basic civil rights because you don't think they are valued for a completely none related purpose? Or are you just trying to obfuscate the issue as you keep trying to claim I am doing, even though I directly address your accusations and you completely ignore my responses (probably because you know they render your arguments completely moot).

Again, until you are actually willing to hold a rational debate where you don't ignore statements and take others out of context, I think I'll move on. I'm really surprised that you are willing to use the same tactics that we both loathe in religious debates. I was hoping for so much more.

RE: "Why would you possibly bring up hunting and self defense when talking about the second amendment if this isn't what you think it's addressing?"

I think you are getting more and more confused as this continues. You are the one who first brought up 2A, all I ever did is disagree with your original assertion that assault rifles and StreetSweepers were needed for hunting and self protection.

Until you are able to clear up your own confusion, I agree that moving on might well be your best option.

Also, to address your second post - the "difference" you state is, again, pointless. So what if a weapon is capable of holding 30 rnds? (most hold 10, by the way, because 30 round mags are heavy)How does that make that weapon any more "dangerous"? My Savage hold 3 rounds (plus 1 in the pipe).

So your argument is that we should ban weapons simply because they are capable of holding more rounds than you think is necessary? And a weapon isn't useful for hunting because it's magazine holds 3 rounds more than the "average"? By the way, I have a .22 rifle that has 25 round mags. I can't buy mags with any other capacity. And, yes, I use it for rabbit hunting. Does that make me a mass murderer, simply because my .22 has too high of a capacity for your comfort? Does that mean that my .22 will worm it's way out of my gun safe and fly down to a school and start shooting kids by itself?

Let's look at the mass shootings over the last decade - how many of them were done using high capacity magazines that could have been prevented if we just limited the size of the mags that the shooter could have gotten. I'll let you do the math on this one...

You specifically stated, Keith, "If people want to stress out because I own a gun for hunting / self-protection, that's their problem," and I responded that some weapons were unnecessary for either - that statement is not fallacious. You're the one envisioning .22's worming their way out of gun safes and flying. I usually expect better conversation from you than that.

RE: "But, if you insist on knowing, no, I don't hunt deer with an AK." - I didn't even ask, much less insist on knowing - this really isn't like you, have a bad day or something?

When I hunted, I preferred a bow, no barrel, no chamber, no magazine.

I suspect, upon further review of the stats, you'll discover that far more gun deaths are due to criminals, than car deaths, and until we can solve the social and economic problems that create criminals, that will continue to be the case.

@Unseen, RE: "even if AK-47's and their ilk were to disappear overnight, the effect on gun crime would be minimal since most gun crimes are perpetrated using handguns or shotguns" - I don't disagree, but in that situation, I'm betting I'm a better shot than my opponent, and I fired "Expert" in the Army - it's the weapons that really don't even need to be aimed, that concern me most.

I did say that, but I also said that the 2nd amendment wasn't about hunting or self protection. I'm not trying to take things out of context, my statement about the .22 flying out of the gun safe, is that everyone seems to want to talk about how the specific configuration of the weapon is the problem. My point is that just because the gun has a pistol grip or a higher capacity mag than people "feel comfortable" with, that does not miraculously turn it into "the problem" and taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the solution.

As for the hunting remark, you did say that people don't hunt with AKs (or something to that effect) and I was just saying that some people DO actually hunt with AKs and other "assault style" weapons. AKs are perfectly acceptable as deer rifles, although the "true" AK (7.62) is too small of a round to hunt anything much bigger than that.

Let's take your statement "...far more gun deaths are due to criminals..." - so, extending this logically, you are advocating disarmament of ALL guns from ALL citizens (since at least 95% of these crimes are committed with handguns). Your argument is either we should completely dismiss the 2nd amendment, because you can't use this argument to ONLY attack the "assault weapons" that are NOT used in these crimes.

But I find it interesting that you are still sidestepping the question of banning cars. I know you aren't going to claim that there are no deaths, injuries and property damage causing by cars, so why are you completely ignoring the question of banning cars? Is it simply because it belies the argument against guns? Banning "assault weapons" because of gun related crimes is like banning minivans because of all the car accidents in the country. The argument is a non sequitur.

As for your comment "...until we can solve the social and economic problems that create criminals..." - that is EXACTLY my point! The problem is the environment that creates criminals, not the tools that they use. We are wasting time trying to blame and control a tool rather than actually addressing the root problem.

Okay, that's funny because you were just accusing ME of bringing up hunting, which goes to show that you aren't being consistent.

As for no one "needs" guns for hunting, the point is completely immaterial. You don't "need" a bow to hunt, either. Wouldn't it be more of a "sport" if you hunted deer and elk with a knife?

And the hunting argument is absolutely and completely beside the point anyway. it is not a valid argument to justify banning the ownership of them and it has nothing at all, what-so-ever, with the 2A. If you don't want to use a rifle to hunt then more power to you, but that doesn't give you the right to ban me from being able to own one.

You specifically said that you thought that the 2A addressed weapons for hunting and self-protection. If you wan to change your story now, that's fine, but you should probably get your story straight.

I have said several times that the 2A is to maintain a well armed militia to defend against threats to the Republic, both foreign and domestic. That includes an authoritarian and/or totalitarian government. If you read the writings of our founders, it is very clear that they meant this particular amendment to be the teeth that supports the rest of the constitution, and with what our government has been doing, it just shows how brilliant those men really were.

I also disagree with your assertion that accidental deaths are far less concerning than purposeful deaths. I don't see how someone can put so much passion into fighting to prevent murders and yet say that accidental deaths are meaningless. I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I personally think that ALL deaths are tragic and we should be focusing on things that cause more preventable deaths rather than focusing on something that will make little to no differences.

RE: "You specifically said that you thought that the 2A addressed weapons for hunting and self-protection." - no, I didn't. I initially stated that assault rifles and StreetSweepers had no value for the average man on the street - you came back with them being necessary for hunting and self-protection. I then argued that they had no value in hunting and believed it to be totally unsportsmanlike to use them for such. Maybe you should go back and re-read the posts, to get it straight.

I would never have said that the purpose of 2A was hunting, it would be absurd to create an amendment to the Constitution that had such a narrow effect - the amendments were much more far-reaching than that, which is one of the reasons they have withstood the test of time.

As far as going up against am "authoritarian and/or totalitarian government," you wouldn't stand a chance - you and anyone else would be mowed down, and those who did it would believe they were doing their patriotic duty. There are far too many mechanisms in place to prevent an armed revolution, for any such undertaking to be successful, hence once again, no need for assault rifles or StreetSweepers.

Revolution can be done effectively with or without gunfire, but the end result might not be at all what you wanted either way. I think it's more lasting and more successful without. Revolution is like spinning the wheel and hoping you win. I fear too many powerful players involved with their own agenda. Beware the two faced "leaders" who promise one thing for support and deliver something quite different.

It can be done without bloodshed, it just requires people to focus on the right thing (I know, that's almost impossible). If we, as a whole, stopped supporting Big Business and force our representatives to actually keep proper checks and balances in the system, we could accomplish a lot. If people stopped pumping money into Big Bank, and started using credit unions, that would send a big signal. If we kicked politicians out that did things like voted to discontinue Glass-Steagall (which was put in place specifically to keep the crash from happening after the Savings & Loan crash), we could get our system back into a reasonable state. But people are way too dis-interested in how bad our government is screwing us over until it's too late and they all look back and say "How could OTHER people let that happen?" Or they are completely focusing on things like forcing fairy tales into our school system.

RE: "If we kicked politicians out" - problem with that, is that it's damn hard to kick a politician out of office, except for not electing him/her next term, and a lot of un-undoable damage can be done in a single term.

Then too, we have the American memory to deal with - politicians can pull all of the crap they like, then mellow out at the onset of an election year, and by November, he public will have forgotten or minimized all of the things they previously did. Just prior to the opening of the G. Bush Library (and I didn't even know the idiot could read), pundits were saying that maybe Little George W wasn't as bad a President as everyone thought - they're right, he was worse - but they're counting on fading memory.